Video Screencast Help

Fix Backup Exec 2012

Created: 22 Jun 2012 | 47 comments
BernardJL's picture
31 Agree
0 Disagree
+31 31 Votes
Login to vote

We have used the Backup Exec product for many years now and have kept up with all the updates.  For us it was a great product, took care of itself, and really saved us time and energy.

Now we have gone forward with Backup Exec 2012 and do indeed like the new user interface and many of the core parts of the system.  However, the features needed for day to day operation are lacking and managing the system is a major chore. 

We have worked with support, and they have been helpful.  They understand the problems but at this point Symantec sees this lack of functionality as the way it works and these items are "feature enhancements".  Upon their suggestion we are placing them here since they claim the developer teams read these and this might make a difference. 

Since there are so many issues, we are placing them all in one message rather than taking the time to break them apart.  We hope there are "resolutions" to these very soon.

Here you go:

BACKUP STORAGE MANAGEMENT

  1. After a job runs there is no connection between the job run and the backup set that was created.  So, for example, you have a run of a job that is 128GB before an error of some sort ended the job.  The next day the job runs fine and you wish to free the 128GB from the failed job.  No way to do it.  The next problems listed are uncovered in an attempt to do this. 
  2. In the display for the "backup to disk" folder, you can click on "Backup Sets".  Now try to find the backup set for the machine as noted above.  You cannot sort, filter, cut or paste anything on this display.  The information is random so the best you can do is read every single one to guess the set that went with the job you are trying to free up.
  3. In the display for the "server" display the "Backup Sets".  There is no way to display the sets grouped by the job.  It is displayed by ""Backup Source" and so you see the disk drives, system state, databases and clicking under them you see dates, then clicking under that you see a set, and finally you can click the line and delete the item.  BUT:  You have to know the date the job ran and if it ran past midnight, one resource could be under one date, the other under another date.  So you can GUESS.  This display could be set up to show by job or be able to somehow sort. 
  4. So you have been doing backups with a retention period of 3 weeks.  Now we are switching to a retention period of 2 weeks.  There is NO WAY to change the retention period for existing backup sets.  So again we have to do some complex task to attempt to track down the unneeded backup sets as outline above.  There should be a way to select, and change the retention period of existing jobs.
  5. Doing a final backup for a decommissioned machine, you want to save that final backup for some time.  Again due to the issues outline above there is no sure way to locate all the "resources" and mark for retention.  Again, you can view the media sets by the machine and click away one at time and set the "retain" flag.
  6. Speaking of the retain.  There is no way to edit the reason for the retention.  You must remove the "retention" and then re-add it.  Again, there are multiple "resources" for the backup so you have to do this multiple times.
  7. The reports for "backup to disk" folders need to be made usable.  You cannot get any report on the backup storage "backup sets".  As Symantec indicates, those reports only work for tape media.  Again, we tried this due to issue 1 above.  We can live without this if we could figure out and access the "backup sets" per job run.
  8. The use of Storage Pools has been completely neutered.  As per Symantec, when a backup job is going to a pool, if the "backup to disk" folder runs out of space it will NOT continue the job on another drive in the pool.  This has increased our cost of backup storage since we had to buy more disk to keep a pad on each drive.  This is a very BIG issue which adds to the management costs to watch over Backup Exec 2012.

MANAGEMENT OF JOBS

  1. There is no way to cancel a job that is queued to run and waiting for a backup device to become available.  In effect, you have to sit and wait for the device to get a backup device and then cancel it.  If you have a number of jobs waiting you waste hours playing whack a mole as each job moves to the run state. 
  2. You cannot cancel a job that is on hold.  This was an attempt to resolve item 1 above, hold the job and then cancel it. Does not work.  And the job will run any time you remove it from hold.
  3. The new automatic discovery process is great.  However, we know a machine is not to be backed up and remove it, it comes back when the next discovery is run.  There should be some way to note that.  We have administrators trying to install agents on what are "new" machines when earlier they were removed from Backup Exec 2012.  In effect, the great feature is made far less useful than before.

MANAGEMENT OF ALERTS

  1. To assign an email address to an "Alert Category" even though you visually "select" multiple alerts, only the first one gets modified.  You must go one by one to assign an email address.
  2. To assign "Category Properties" again, this is a one by one event.  You can not disable a group of alerts you must go one by one.

JOB LOGS /JOB HISTORY

  1. The information provided is not clear and in many cases misleading.  The message "Failed authorization check the user name and password used to access this resource." is the message reported in the log when a machine is off-line during the backup window.  Our administrators spent time checking all the user ids trying to resolve this. 
  2. The error "Physical Volume Library Media not found." give on information on what volume what file or anything useful to help determine the problem.  And since there is no link between a job and the media set as outline before, we are left searching in the dark.

=====

At this point we will stop.  We have more "feature" requests.  We have spent over two weeks of using this product and noting the feature gaps.  We are hopeful that Symantec's Development team and get these features in and the product back on track. 

Please note, that we are looking for ways to do the job.  It would be great if your time has better ways to access the functionality outlined.

Again, currently we are committed to Backup Exec 2012 so remain hopeful these "features" are forthcoming into the product.

Thanks again if you need clarification on any of these items, don't hesitate to get touch.

Thanks.

 

Comments 47 CommentsJump to latest comment

Jed Gresham's picture

I have nothing to do with BE, but appreciate the passion, well thought out post, and time invested in the process. Symantec is better off with customers like you.

 

Jed Gresham
Principal Product Manager, Backup & Recovery Portfolio Strategy
0
Login to vote
BE_EPM's picture

I agree whole-heartedly.  I am part of the Backup Exec team and will be making sure there is increased visibility on your well-written post.  We are evaluating many things related to the BE 2012 user experience based on customer feedback, and I can assure you that we take the feedback very seriously.

I would like to know, would you be interested in directly influencing our new releases by participating in usability studies and/or beta programs?

0
Login to vote
BernardJL's picture

BE_EPM, you are welcome for the nice note.  I hope someone does take these "feature requests" to heart. 

Backup Exec was a very nice product.  We loved that it would run for weeks with only minimal interaction when there was a problem, usually with a client machine.  We could quickly review the job log/history and quickly take action.

Today, I have to spend every morning looking at Backup Exec 2012.  Furthermore, as outlined in my feature requests,  not being able to get information to resolve issues. 

By way of example, I was out of the office last week. My first day out, there was a temporary network failure.  Backup Exec 2012 failed every job for the whole week.  We went the entire week with no backups.  When I returned and tried to re-run a jobs, they would fail.  I had to completely stop the Backup Exec 2012 services and restart them.  Then everything worked fine.  This was with a Symantec Support Tech on the phone.  All indicators in the Backup Exec 2012 user interface showed everything was fine.  All the storage devices were on-line and accessible.  Yet every job failed until the restart.  The Support Tech did not collect any data about this failure since there was no information kept by "beservices" that would help debug the problem.

Backup Exec 2012 should have been more robust than that. 

As to your offer to participate "in usability studies and/or beta programs."  sure we would consider that just let us know the particulars.

Again, thanks for your kind words.  We are hopeful you will be able to get Backup Exec 2012 back to the robust backup solution we original purchased.

 

 

+2
Login to vote
RajSoni's picture

Thank you Bernard for writing such well written complaint. I was under the impression I am the only one facing similar usability problems after upgrading to BE 2012.

I believe that zero usability testing was done prior to releasing this update. Extremely disappointing to see such a great product being reduced to "enhanced product"

The primary reason for people to choose BE was very small learning curve, and the product takes care of itself. Now instead of focusing on business critical issues, I have to spend time with the product everyday to ensure nothing goes wrong due to configuration issues or "product enhancements"

Thank you symantec for wasting my time, everyday.

 

+1
Login to vote
BernardJL's picture

Turns out the "enhancement" that was described here previously was an error due to a job failure.  The job failed due to an issue with no response from the Backup Exec services.  At that point in the process, there has been no data logged for a log file. 

So we removed that feature request.  You might consider that there should always be something logged for any job no matter how it fails.  But the architecture of Backup Exec 2012 has the service that failed be the one that is supposed to create the log file.  So no log file.

0
Login to vote
BernardJL's picture

Well, here is another enhancement suggestion.

MANAGEMENT OF BACKUP SETS

  1. Well today we wanted to remove one of the "backup to disk" folders from service.  There are still a few "backup sets" within their retention period.  Not to worry.  We went into "Storage" -> "Backup to Disk Name" -> "Backup Sets".  From there we selected all the backup sets.   [Ed. Note:  This "Backup Sets" display still has the problem (needs enhancement) to allow sorting.  See original post for details of this.]  We click "Duplicate".  BUT the next screen asks us, "Keep for".  We want to duplicate these sets and keep the SAME RETENTION period.  NO CAN DO.  We want to simply move these backup sets to another "backup to disk" folder keeping the same retention periods.  Why not a selection to allow this? 

Again we hope that Symantec quickly adds these "enhancements" to bring the Backup Exec 2012 product back to full functionality. 

+1
Login to vote
Carmanet-Mark's picture

I have also found that the time required to manage backup exec 2012 has increased due to exactly what bernard has reported above. I have also had strange things happen that cause several days of backups not running. It's like i have to babysit it on a almost daily basis.

Symantec please give us these enhancements sooner rather than later.

 

+1
Login to vote
BernardJL's picture

Well we might as well keep the documentation in one place.  So here are two more that we ran across just today:

MANAGEMENT OF LOGS

  1. We noticed today that just because you have an entry in the "Job History" for a particular server, it does not mean there is any useful information there.  Turns out, that "Backup Exec 2012" is happy to delete the "Job Log" for any particular "Job History".  It would make sense that if you have an entry under "Backup and Restore" -> "My Server Name" ->  "Job History" -> "This Job Log" there should be some data along with it.  However, we have "Job History" entries you cannot click or find out any detailed information on them.  Turns out the "Data Base Manager" determined the information was "old" and deleted it.  However the "Job History" line remained. 

NOTE:  Yes, you can go into "Configuration and Settings" -> "Backup Exec Settings" -> "Database Maintenance" -> "Delete Aged Data" and make sure that "Keep job history for specified number of days" is the same as "Number of days to keep data before deleting it.....Job logs".  But who knew?  How about linking the two?  How about a default or setting like "Keep job logs as long as there is a Job History entry"? 

MANAGEMENT OF SERVER CONDITION

  1. It remains tiring to every day check all the jobs that completed with "Success with Exceptions" to see what gives.  In 90% of the cases the issue is a file that is part of the "System State" that cannot be found.  Unlike regular files with this sort of issue (like temporary files) there is NO WAY to "exclude" them.  Sure, the issue is some install process left behind some reference in the "windows registry" or in an "inf" file referencing these files that were never installed.  However, we are not going to call every vendor and try to fix their install programs.  Your tech article suggests creating "empty files" with the same name.  Well that ought to give some install process a real fit: "file not found" verses "file with no data".  Also in a few cases there are over 100 missing files.  The suggested work around is not reasonable.  How about somehow allow us to "excluding/ignoring" these files from the "System State" backup.  After we determine there is no impact, we can get "Successful" backups.  Clearly these files are not needed, and the constant "Success with Exceptions" will over time wear down our administrators and they will miss a real issue.

Hopefully, we will see some of these implemented soon to bring Backup Exec 2012 in line with the high quality, reliable software we have come to expect from Symantec Corporation.

 

 

+2
Login to vote
BernardJL's picture

Well, this is getting to be a daily activity running into "enhancements" for Backup Exec 2012.  Well here you go:

MANAGEMENT OF JOBS

  1. The usefulness of the "Test Run" on backup jobs was greatly reduced in this version.  We are unable to select either "Check for sufficient storage space" or "Check that media is available".  If we select either one, the job fails.  This means the ONLY thing "Test Run" can "test" is the "Logon account credentials" which is already done during creation of a backup job.  The reason for this lack of functionally is that the "Test Run" process does not handle a "storage device pool."  It is not clear why, since these are made up of "backup to disk" folders and the necessary checks seem quite easy.  So it would be nice if "Backup Exec 2012" is "enhanced" to allow "Test Run" jobs to work as expected on "storage device pools".

As always we are waiting for Symantec's team to bring "Backup Exec 2012" up to its old high standards.

Thanks.

+1
Login to vote
BernardJL's picture

Well, we should have waited before posting that last one.  Seems we run into these "enhancements" in pairs.  So we now have...

BACKUP STORAGE MANAGEMENT

  1. With Backup Exec 2012 we have the new life cycle storage management that is supposed to take care of managing the backup storage.  We use "backup to disk" folders and "storage pools" that contain those folders.  For some reason, the algorithm being used by the "storage manager" is NOT using the space evenly across the folders in a "storage pool".  One "backup to disk" folder is only 5% full and yet we have two that are 99% full.  We run a backup job and you would think it would run against the empty one.  But no it runs against one of the fuller ones.  So we are manually taking "backup to disk" folders out of the pool in an attempt to force a more balanced use across the folders.  So a much needed enhancement is for the "life cycle storage management" process to change to improve its use of storage resources in a "storage pool".

Again, we are waiting patiently for Symantec to implement these "enhancements" quickly order to reduce our costs of using this software.

Thanks

+2
Login to vote
BernardJL's picture

Well this is an "enhancement" we thought was a feature some how buried in the new "Backup Exec 2012", but turns out it is just not there.  So we share another one.

MANAGEMENT OF JOBS

  1. Turns out there is no way to make a "job stream."  For example, we have 20 machines to backup over the weekend.  We used to be able to put those 20 backup jobs so they ran one after another.  With the current version we just have to let the 20 jobs go and let each of them fight it out for a "backup to disk" folder to use.  And in fact for network loading we really want to have a single stream of jobs that run right after another.  Of course you might say we can schedule each of them by time to get the same effect.  That is just not reasonable.  The management overhead of keeping records on which job ran when, and how long did it take to so we can estimate the time to start the next job.  Let's get in the 21st century and have "Backup Exec 2012" manage this for us.  So the "enhancement" is to provide a mechanism to create "streams" of backup jobs so they can run one after another.

Again, thanks for taking the input.  We are still looking to some response from Symantec on their plan to fix this product. 

+2
Login to vote
throatdamage's picture

I'm currently struggling with a similiar situation, Bernard.

I upgraded from BE2010R3 to 2012 - what was once a single job containing file data from 13 servers, with one duplication job to tape, has now been expanded to 13 different jobs with 13 different duplication jobs.

+1
Login to vote
daames's picture

I'm using two deduplication appliances. Another problem with Storage Pools... Jobs are randomly sended on the two appliances.

MANAGEMENT OF JOBS

  1. An enhancement will be to create an affinity between jobs and Storage Folder or OST appliances. If you send job on the second appliance the next time you run your backup job, you will store data blocks two times and deduplication is not efficient.
0
Login to vote
daames's picture

MANAGEMENT OF JOBS

  1. Enabling or disabling GRT on one or more virtual machines in a job containing all VMs of a cluster to avoid warning / exception on Linux VMs.
+1
Login to vote
Eric Pouliot's picture

BACKUP STORAGE MANAGEMENT

  1. When there's a duplicate job to tape, if the tape have not enough space, the job will ask for an overwritable media and wait forever, even if its a library with 24 tapes (Exabyte Magnum 224).   If I cancel the job and restart it will take another empty tape.
0
Login to vote
BernardJL's picture

Eric, we have this exact problem with "Backup to Disk" folders.  A backup job will get in the loop asking to "insert more media" when in fact there is plenty of disk space both in the folder being used and other folders in the pool.

Your issue is with tape but it sounds to us like this must some lower level problem with "Backup Exec 2012" that effects any backup media.

It is not clear why this remains as as "feature request" by Symantec when it sure looks like something broken.

 

0
Login to vote
Eric Pouliot's picture

What kind of HD do you have?

I have a Dell PowerEdge R720 (Intel Xeon E5-2640, 32GB ram) 12x 3TB HD in RAID5, and I cannot set the concurrent write sessions to more than 1, If I put 2 the engine will crash in less than 24h.
With 1 concurrent I don't have your problem.   But there's so much problems with BE2012....

 

 

0
Login to vote
BernardJL's picture

Our disk drivers are "shared" folders on a few different machines.  We have not seen your crashing issue with more than one "concurrent write sessions" set.  Although we generally have them set to one (1) to limit the number of backups that can run at one time (see our earlier note about creating a job thread). 

You might check that you have all the latest "Live Update" fixes applied.  Some of our more egregious crashes seemed to have abated with the latest fixes.

0
Login to vote
Eric Pouliot's picture

MANAGEMENT OF JOBS

  1. The incremental with the RALUS/RAMS agents don't work has espected when there's a lot of data. For an exemple, this weekend there were a synthetic backup for the Macintosh students: 549GB, 100% successful.   4 hours later it run an incremental on the same task: 549GB, 100% successful !? There's another job on the same day (after the students folders) for the Groups folder, synthetic: 653MB, 100% successful, 1 hour later an incremental: 420bytes, 100% successful.  I have 6 tasks for this server and the ones with problem are the ones with 20GB and more.
0
Login to vote
Eric Pouliot's picture

After I open a case with Symantec, this problem was due to the Synthetic backup. 

The synthetic backup don't work with the RALUS/RAMS agents, even if I can set a task (Full/Incremental/Synthetic), after 2 or 3 days the incremental don't work, I don't know why, and the guy from Symantec didn't know either.

I changed the jobs for a Backup to Disk, I don't use the synthetic anymore, and it works.

 

0
Login to vote
Lyle Behmlander's picture

Disk Storage

1.  SAN disks are set offline whenever Database Maintenance is performed.  I have 8 SAN drives being used for backup purposes and everytime the Database maintenance runs (at Noon) I need to set the SAN disks back online.  I had to create a script set the drives back online whenever this occurs.  Being we monitor the system for media alerts, we get hit with 8 alerts every day at Noon. 

2.  Second the Disk pools from BernardJL.  I had to change 45 jobs to goto specific disks instead of having them choose the best fit.

Thanks for getting this started BernardJL.

 

0
Login to vote
Alan English's picture

MANAGEMENT OF JOBS:

The automatic discovery process should have a scope setting so that it is only discovering system in locations that you want it to discover.  Example:  I have seven cities with BE 2012 Media servers in each city.  Each city has from 10 - 25 servers.  When the discovery process runs, it is displaying servers from other cities that either haven't been upgraded to 2012 yet or we simply don't backup and don't want on the list.  I would like to be able to set a discovery scope either via an OU or IP range.  That would be extremely helpful IMHO.

 

Regards,

 

Alan

0
Login to vote
john4321's picture

+1 for Enabling or disabling GRT on one or more virtual machines in a job containing all VMs of a cluster to avoid warning / exception on Linux VMs.

I dont want to have to split a full VMware datacenter backup into multiple jobs. This gets messy when your already using groups. Also my customers dont like to see exceptions in the reports. 

 

+1
Login to vote
vincent vincent's picture

We use backupExec to backup our Oracle database and I have to say that 2012 is the buggy version I ever seen. I created a case 4 months ago and having more than 10times webex session with support engineer but the case still unsolve. Due to the lacking of Oracle knowledge,  symantec engineer seem simply trying this and that for their luck and keep trying to prove that's because of my database problem rather than admit the BackupExec problem. Finally I found some debug output from the media server and prove that the way BackupExec seach the catalog causing the error, hope that can help them to help me.

 

 

0
Login to vote
Vlad_Stank's picture

Well, It's been over half a year since this post. 

No word from Symantec on any of the issues mentioned above?

Hmm...

0
Login to vote
Glenn Hanratty's picture

I wonder if Symantec is listening?

Hello?

0
Login to vote
Swathi Turlapaty's picture

Glenn,  the product teams are indeed actively listening to the ideas submitted.But, I did escalate this idea to the team. So, please stay tuned to hear back from them soon.

0
Login to vote
Randy W's picture

In addition to the Bernard's thoughtful suggestions (Thanks Bernard!) above :

1.  Why only 1 backup to disk folder per volume?   Under BE 2010 we used multiple B2D folders to segregate the backup sets by type and set.  Amoungst other things, this made it easy ID and duplicate B2D files to tape for offsite monthly backups.

2.  Under "Backup and Restore" in the Servers windows, why isn't there an option to add the Operation column to the display.  Drilling into each server to find out what it's currently doing is a waste of time.

We recently made the mistake of "downgrading" from BE 2010 to BE 2012.  If Symantec wants to get out of the backup software business, they could've just made an announcement.  We have alot invested in Backup Exec, but will be forced to look at competitive solutions when our maintenace agreement comes due.

 

0
Login to vote
Craig Shuey's picture

We have many many problems with the 2012 version.  After 8 months of struggling with Symantec technical support teams, and paid consultants to try to get the problems resolved, we are considering legal action.  Any of you interested in joining in a class action lawsuit ?

0
Login to vote
gator625's picture

We upgraded a customer to BE2012 about 8 months ago also and it has been a disaster ever since. I have called support multiple times and they have been no help at all. Their support is not even worth talking to when it comes to this product. We are looking at backing down to BE2010 again or trying to find something else altogether. We have customers all over the state and are thankful we didn't upgrade them all at once. What is even worse is that we had the customer pay for maintenance and there has not been a single update to address any of our issues, which match about everything above (especially when it comes to drives running out of space and losing connections to the drives).

0
Login to vote
Swathi Turlapaty's picture

Thank you all for your feedback. A Product Manager from the Backup Exec team would like to schedule a call to listen to your product concerns and get your input. This would be a separate call, and not a group call. Hence, please send a Connect private message with your name and phone or email to BE-Billy or email Billy_cashwell@symantec.com.

0
Login to vote
ciccaj's picture

I have been using Backup Exec since version 10. I've upgraded to 11 then 12 then 2010 and now finally 2012 and I would have to say that 2012 has so far been the worst software experience of my 30 year IT career. The migration was a disaster and I had to rebuild my 250+ backup jobs manually. I had no backups for over 2 weeks and Symantec Support was no help at all in getting my system functional again. Now that I have recreated all of the backup jobs for my 200+ servers I continue to have issues which Symantec seems to be unable to even diagnose let alone address. Every weekend on 2 of my backup servers all the jobs will suddenly get cancelled by user Recovery. Some of these jobs require 2 days to complete so when they bomb out on Sunday morning at 10 am and have to be restarted the backups then run into the work week which then impacts the enterprise users. On another of my servers all the tape jobs will slow down from the normal 2000+MB/s to between 10 and 20 MB/s and this will go on for a day or 2 and then they will all speed up again. I get these constant messages that I'm out of disk space. What is the point of having disk pools if you have to manage each disk individually. Why did disk pools work fine in 2010 but not 2012? And I didn't read anything about this prior to the upgrade. I would STRONGLY recommend to anyone contemplating upgrading from 2010 to 2012: DON'T DO IT.

 

+2
Login to vote
andjm's picture

Backup Exec removes catalog entries for tape-based backups that were dependent on a disk-based full.

That data is still on tape, should still be in catalog. Good for file-level reversion, not for system recovery tree.

0
Login to vote
andjm's picture

Needs a better job status or notification option for inventory and catalog operations.

0
Login to vote
JustTryinToGetItToWork's picture

I am spending more time managing this media server/B.Exec 2012 than I should be.

A couple things worth mentioning.

1) It sure would be nice to be able to see/print the 'Job Definitions' of a particular job. In 2010 all you had to do is 'right click' the job definition and select 'view summary'. Then you print to an xps printer and "voila" you have a hard copy/soft copy for your records

2) When looking at the backup sets of a particular storage group, it presents all the backup sets from all the servers that have sent jobs there. As mentioned before, the lack of sorting makes it near impossible to send backup sets to tape. If you try and use the "shift" key and scroll from screen to screen via the scroll bar, the selections are "removed" once you go 2 or 3 screens!  How are other administrators handling environments where database transaction logs jobs are running 12-24 times a day. And multiply this by a dozen servers and you have over 150 backup sets per day!

And on the same note, I do see that you can look at the backup sets on a per server basis. But this is VERY time consuming. If 15 servers are sending jobs to a storage group (B2D folder), then you have to click on 15 servers individually to see where the data is....whether it is on Disk, Tape or both. You can run a 'duplicate' job here, but you have to drill into each day to show the job under the date. It would be nice if you could do a select all and then "expand" all the dates to show the transaction log job contained. Instead, I have to manually click several hundred times to make the job available to select. Then after sending this to tape, I have to come back and manually select "delete".  It would be nice if the B2D file was auto deleted after it was sent to tape. (Similar to the feature iavailable when you create a job on a server. )

I have more. But this is all I have time for right now.

0
Login to vote
syntaxsniffer's picture

I agree - BE 2012 is a nightmare.  We have been "trying" to use it...  when it works.  My favorite "feature" is when a backup is scheduled to run and then BE says..."nah, that doesn't need to run" and skips it with no error or anything.  #Crazy  If were Symantec, I'd scrap BE 2012 and go back to 2012 and start over from that code base.  There is no fixing BE 2012.

0
Login to vote
kradangel's picture

Really, This is very difficult to manage. My BE 2012 crash yesterday because of scheduling. Scenario is, I have 6 servers that need to be backup weekly (1 Full and 6 days Incremental). 1 server is dedicated to 1 tape, 2 servers on the other tape and lastly 3 servers on the last tape. Every month have 4 weeks and sometimes 5 weeks. For ther server 1, Need to create 5 different Full and Incremental jobs, Its like WEEK 1, WEEK 2, WEEK 3, WEEK 4. Same thing on the other servers.My delimma is when WEEK 1 is on queue I need to HOLD the other 3 weeks in order for the backup to complete successfuly and check the Backup every morning if its completed or not. Just yesterday, I overlooked the other job last week and not put them on HOLD. I already changed the tape assigned to that JOB, that's why error occured.

I hope you can help me fix my current issue. Not so familiar with this BE 2012 and even the 2010.

That's why I need your advise.

https://www-secure.symantec.com/connect/forums/scheduled-job-stuck-be-scheduled-job-status

 

Thanks!

0
Login to vote
SleepyPete's picture

There have been some excellent comments in this post. Almost exactly 12 months from it's start I unfortunatley have to come to the conclusion that Backup Exec is broken. I've been using Backup Exec since Seagate owned it; when Arcserve was the only viable alternative (for NT) and when both products worked. Simarly to ciccaj, BE2012 has been the worst experience of backup software i've ever had.

I'm not going to detail the issues, there are far too many but i am going to suggest a solution...a new backup solution

0
Login to vote
millerns's picture

I have been following a few different discussions on this site in order to try and find answers to the long list of questions I have had since "upgrading" to BE 2012. I do not have the time to write a specific response for each of these separate discussions, so I will be writing this and posting in a few locations. I do apologize if anyone considers this to be spam, but the comments are relevant to all of the locations they have been posted.

BEGIN RANT I can confidently say that this is the biggest step backwards I have seen in a software product. I have not been using BE since the start, as some of the users in these forums have posted, but I have been using it for close to 10 years now, since the Veritas days. Without fail, I have found problems or annoyances in each version of the software, and it has been resolved by the time the next version of the software was released. This is the first time that I have found multiple incredibly useful features completely gutted out of the software, and the new version has exponentially more problems than the previous version. No ability to backup multiple servers within the same job? Seriously? No more job monitor? Media Set assignments are ignored, because "the design is that if a backup job starts most companies would want it to have the best chance of finishing and not fail just because of no available tape"??? Says who exactly? I have spoken to 7 or 8 of my colleagues, and there is universal agreement: as an IT administrator, we would much rather have the software conform to the "backup design" that we have put in place, rather than to just do everything it feels necessary to complete a job. If that job fails because it runs out of storage, or no tape is available? That's my fault, and I need to correct it before the next day's job is run. That is literally what I am paid to do - be responsible for ensuring that, among other things, the backups run successfully, and making corrections if they do not. I would much rather find that one night's backups did not complete because I had done something wrong, than find out that every single night my media sets that I had carefully planned are being ignored because BE thinks it has the right to grab tapes from any media set it feels like. We need to take tapes offsite, this is main reason we are using tape storage. If we didn't care where the data resided, and didn't need to take it offsite, we would do all of our backups to disk. As it works now, I cannot rely on the backups being written to the correct weekly tape so that I can confidently take it offsite knowing it contains all of the data needed. The fact that I cannot create one single weekly job that has all of the servers writing, in order, to one set of tapes, and instead have to rely on a complicated set of protection and scheduling settings to be able to backup multiple servers is just the icing on this horrible tasting cake. I also have yet to see an answer from Symantec for why all of this was changed. Actual IT admins are posting to say that the software is no longer functional for their uses, and the response from Symantec has essentially been "all of the problems you are complaining about are features of the new software." I appreciate all of the attempts that Symantec employees have been making in these forums to answer these questions, and to try and assist their user base. However, for the most part this is just an example of very dedicated "front line" workers bending over backwards to try and be helpful, while there is really nothing they can do to fix what in the end is bad software. You had a great product, you constantly improved it so that administration time was reduced and reliability was increased....and now most of that progress has been wiped out by a redesigned product that chose to place the needs of people who want everything to be done in a wizard over the needs of people who actually need to reliably backup huge amounts of data on a daily basis. All of these forum discussions have been open for about a year, and despite numerous posts and promises from Symantec none of these issues have actually been resolved. END RANT

+1
Login to vote
MightyM's picture

How long should we wait...
Our company operates round about 40 BackupExec installations of different customers. Aprox. 20 of them are already migrated to BackupExec 2012 for various reasons. As many others we are using BackupExec since the product has been called "Veritras" and we alway could be sure to have the best product choosen for our customers. I am in the IT business since 25 years now and never, ever have seen a product has been so badly "impoved" as BackupExec 2012. The effort we have to spend to operate a BackupExec 2012 installation compared to a previous version has at least doubled. Every member of our backup team hate's the new version and the unhandy GUI with lack of functionality that we had in previous versions. In the beginning we thought ok, Symantec is big enought to understand that they lauchend a not finished product, and they are "professionals" enough to realize this fact, and make a change and fix it. Now more than one year later, less has changed, not even a simple function like sorting or filtering a column. Shame on you product and development team - this is so disapointing! For us it seams there will be no light at the end of the tunnel. The question is how long to wait until we migrate to a new product.

0
Login to vote
Sea_Roadkill's picture

We got tired of waiting. BE2012 has been riddled with issues from the beginning. Symantechad great ideas for the product but the execution was poor.

I've been using BE since it was Seagate owned and running on NT4...guess all things change though. I just signed a deal with a cloud backup provider and had a 1gb fiber link installed. Every night we snap to offsite and I no longer have a bill for tape, and I have 2 racks empty where my SAN and library once sat.

The other options were too expensive or just as terrible as BE2012

0
Login to vote
rcpr's picture

I guess the word is getting out to Symantec's competitors: 

 

Backup Exec 2012 is creating “tremendous issues” for IT managers with complicated migration, failed backup jobs, and slow recoveries.

Escape Backup Exec—starting at $225 a month – for a complete backup & DR solution that includes award-winning software, secure online storage, and US-based phone support from Zetta.net.

Try Zetta for free – and see why 450+ enterprises and schools have deployed Zetta’s 3-in-1 backup & disaster recovery solution in their environment.

I wish they would fix it.  I hate to move to a new product. But I must constantly babysit this version (fails)  and it is getting soooo old...

 

Randy

0
Login to vote
JavierGM's picture

I have been using BEX for ten years past and this new release is very dissapointing. As everybody has said, it is a big step backwards, maybe is the end of BEX as an excelent backup product.

Don't bother upgrading, stay with BEX 2010.

0
Login to vote
TJC's picture

Not to be a broken record, but I agree, BE2012 is a step backwards.  I have provided Product Enhancements in the past but would like to present another at this time.

We have a need to backup CentOS and have found that the BE2012 Linux Agent does not support CentOS.  Further, the BE 2012 Linux Agent only supports Red Hat versions 6.2 or ealier. Red Hat version 6.3 was released Jun 2012, 6.4 was released Feb 2013, and 6.5 was released Nov 2013.

Please add the functionality of the BE2012 Linux Agent to support all versions of CentOS and Red Hat.

Thank you, hopefully this request is heard. 

0
Login to vote
L-3_Dave's picture

BernardJL - Thank you for taking the time to report these issues back to Symantec.

I just wish my company would have seen this before buying the product. 

It has be almost 23months since BenrardJL's post and 4 Service Packs later. When are we going to see an update that addresses any of the concerns in this post?

 

 

0
Login to vote
BernardJL's picture

You're welcome, L-3_Dave.  It did take some time to put those original notes together.  However, as you noted, there has been no action on these items.  Some folks added a few other issues to the list. 

We have been hopeful after each "service pack" that something will change, but we have no clue as to what all those updates were fixing.  We continue with the same problems now for almost two years.

At this point, we are looking into other solutions.  We will keep Backup Exec running and updated during this time. 

As we noted, we have really enjoyed this product in the past, it was quite good.  But some how Symantec has lost its way with this product or perhaps has a goal of ending the product via a self induced downward spiral (bad features -> less sales -> less engineering -> bad features .... --> end product since no one likes it.)

In any event, thanks for your comment, and all the best with the product.

[Interesting:  The spell checker for this forum's editor does not have "Symantec" in the dictionary so it marks it wrong.  You would think....]

0
Login to vote
AlexPotter's picture

Whereas BE2014 were announced last week, it would be great to hear from Bernard feedback about it. To be honest I believe your opinion much more then everyone else. If you will tell nothing was changed - its definitely time to get rid of BE in our environment.

Cheers.

0
Login to vote